Re: Time is constant ?

Thank you for your reply, I do not understand why you can not understand the question when the question is more or less the same as the first question, but put in another context. The original answer you give of yes, tells me I am correct in my thinking and time dilation is incorrectly interpreted when considering the rate of time. Please let me try to clarify the question for you.

Before the big bang there was ''nothing'', even ''time'' did not exist,

So we start at 0t

Can you expand from 0t at any rate you wish to try , without leaving an immediate past being created?

Or in another form

Can you travel from (A) to (B) without leaving a past geometrical position or past chronological position of where you were at that time in your past?

Both of these questions are the same question.

In any case, a scientific forum is not a court room where you can ask leading questions and demand a yes/no answer.

I did not demand an answer, I asked if you would please answer, you do have the right to decline to give an answer. However If we both agree in answers to both the same questions, our answers being relative between two observers , this shows why there can not be a time dilation per-say, and I assume we both must assume a problem with SR.

Further, it is pretty clear where your leading questions are leading. It looks like an effort to disprove SR, by bringing in some vague notion of Planck time. To which all I can say is good luck! Everything that you seem to struggle with, have already been solved and then some.

We are in personal theory with this, so it would be my own personal theory. The theory would be that Newton was correct with absolute time, Einstein has relativity wrong. My personal objective opinion of Einsteins work, showing more leaks than a tea strainer. Forgive the pun.

In this forum, any private theory that you propose must in any case recover 'prior art' (all verified observations) and then propose some test with a prediction from your theory that is different from the predictions of currently established theories. Are you up to that?

Well! recovering ''prior art'' I believe I have already added this by adding Newton v Einstein on the laws of time, with Planck in Newtons corner. Planck already has done c/dx to a minimal distance from 0, the experiment already exists, the evidence is already there, a Planck length can not dilate.

If you was on Neptune or wherever, I on Earth, we both use the light constant of c/dx having Planck time (tp), then we must both agree on the rate of time being simultaneous or disagree about the speed of light.

Think of it this way, if you measure the rate of time to be slower than my measured rate, then we would have to disagree about the speed of light.

c/dx would not be equal to c/dx if we had both measured a variance in rate of time.

If not, this forum may not be for you. If so, please proceed with proposing your theory, but then please stick to the above guidelines.

Like I said above, all the evidence , the citations, the people involved, the maths involved already exists. However I could write a paper , add citations, add quotes etc, but at the moment we would still be unable to use Newton because we cant make an accurate clock.

I never understood why we can't just chat? There always become more ''want'' from the forums.

I am trying to advance my ideas further, but without discussion I am still looking for something that seems missing from my ideas, like agreement from another person who can help me develop the ideas furthermore.

[quote=google]The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ï¿½quantum of timeï¿½, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds.[/quote]

The smallest measurement of time, 1.s is a huge ''space away'' from 0.

0---------------1.s

0------0.5s

Problem, both of these time lines exist in the present/now and can be manipulated to look like time slows down.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » April 19th, 2017, 10:15 am wrote:If you was on Neptune or wherever, I on Earth, we both use the light constant of c/dx having Planck time (tp), then we must both agree on the rate of time being simultaneous or disagree about the speed of light.

Think of it this way, if you measure the rate of time to be slower than my measured rate, then we would have to disagree about the speed of light.

c/dx would not be equal to c/dx if we had both measured a variance in rate of time.

You appear to be saying that time can not vary among observers because a change in time would also involve a change in the observed speed of light. In your example where two observers (one on Earth and another on Neptune) disagree about the rate of time, they can still AGREE about the speed of light because their observed discrepancy about time is proportional to an observed discrepancy about distance so the constant c is still equal to distance/ time. In this case, the distance involved is the Plank length and the Plank length is, in theory, observer dependent just as are all other measurements of length.

In relativity, the speed of light is the same for both observers even though their observations of time and distance may vary because it is the proportion c= distance/ time that remains the same. In relativity, changes in time are always accompanied by proportional changes in length-distance-space. Whatever you choose to call it.

The non-relativist view where measurements of time and distance are unchanging may work under ordinary conditions but the observations fail at the extremes.

Re: Time is constant ?

You appear to be saying that time can not vary among observers because a change in time would also involve a change in the observed speed of light. In your example where two observers (one on Earth and another on Neptune) disagree about the rate of time, they can still AGREE about the speed of light because their observed discrepancy about time is proportional to an observed discrepancy about distance so the constant c is still equal to distance/ time. In this case, the distance involved is the Plank length and the Plank length is, in theory, observer dependent just as are all other measurements of length.

Distance can not contract, space has no physicality and a Planck length is fractionally 0 but not exactly 0. So how do you or anyone else suggest that a fractional 0 length of space can contract?

If two observers disagree about the rate of time, they have to disagree on the speed of light.

Ok let's look at the why this is.

Observer 1 rate of time 1.s per 1.s

Observer 2 rate of time 0.9s per 1.s relative to observer 1.

Observer 2 measures the speed of light d/t to be different than observer 1's d/t measurement because of the time difference.

1m/s

1m/0.9s is not equal

You can also doing it by using gravity,

Observer 1 measures a falling objects rate of fall to be a=9.82m/s²

Observer 2 with a slower rate of time measures? a=9.82m/0.9s²

Would we say gravity was not constant?

You wanted an experiment Burt? drop two equal mass objects from an equal height and measure the rate of acceleration with a dilated clock and a ground state clock. G constant remains constant, the timing of the falling masses fall is synchronous.

Re: Time is constant ?

I have told you before that there is no concept like "the rate of time". So how can two observers disagree about something that is non-existent? Inertial observers in relative motion will disagree about the elapsed time and distance between two events that they have observed, all due to the way spacetime structure works.

If you are struggling with this concept, I suggest that you do not mention relativity again in defense of your ideas, because you will run the risk of being branded as a "crackpot" that does not understand relativity, but now want to replace it. Most will soon loose interest.

If you want to get useful responses, just go on quietly and develop your theory and describe it properly. Many readers may just be intrigued enough to follow your development, even asking questions about it. If you keep on with the "relativity is wrong" stance, apart from wasting available development time countering the critiques, most will soon realize that they are wasting their time too and leave your thread alone.

Re: Time is constant ?

If two observers disagree about the rate of time, they have to disagree on the speed of light.

Ok let's look at the why this is.

Observer 1 rate of time 1.s per 1.s

Observer 2 rate of time 0.9s per 1.s relative to observer 1.

Observer 2 measures the speed of light d/t to be different than observer 1's d/t measurement because of the time difference.

1m/s

1m/0.9s is not equal

You can also doing it by using gravity,

Observer 1 measures a falling objects rate of fall to be a=9.82m/s²

Observer 2 with a slower rate of time measures? a=9.82m/0.9s²

Would we say gravity was not constant?

You wanted an experiment Burt? drop two equal mass objects from an equal height and measure the rate of acceleration with a dilated clock and a ground state clock. G constant remains constant, the timing of the falling masses fall is synchronous.

Example times, not accurate.

This sounds like an evasion but the speed of light is defined as a “relative absolute” and it can not be measured as anything other than 299,792,458 meters per second EXACTLY. That means there are no more decimal points to be added to the value or experimental results to give us a different value for the speed of light in a vacuum. The value of c is a designated absolute by international consensus.

Here is the problem with your example of two experimenters who find different values for the speed of light. They must first determine the distance over which the speed is measured and, if the meter is their choice of units, each experimenter can determine the length of a standard meter in his own laboratory by the use of a timer and a light source. The length of a standard meter is defined by convention as, ‘The length of the path traveled by light during a time interval of 1/ 299,792,458 of a second.’ This means that, if the two observers measure different elapses of time, they will also measure different values for the length of a meter but they should agree on their eventual measurements for the speed of light since that is what they use to determine the length of a meter in the first place.

Consider the dilemma if your two experimenters try to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light year and they find a discrepancy. There is the same difficulty in your experiment with dropping objects in two reference frames with different measurements of time. The measured height will also be different if their elapsed times are different and their gravitational gradients will also be different. The same principles of relativity apply to both frames individually because the changes in time and space remain proportional within all reference frames.

We can easily imagine a world in which gravity, space, time, and their ratio c are all unchangeable absolutes but such a world does not conform to observations which is why we have relativity. We could also have a model of relativity where either space or time is the designated absolute and c is a variable but that would be a more complicated point of view so c is the absolute of choice.

Re: Time is constant ?

Add to this that space is demonstrated to be isotropic, i.e. you can turn a Michelson-Morley experiment to any orientation, anywhere in free space, but the result remains a null interference fringe shift. This can only be so if the propagation of light is also isotropic in all inertial frames. The only freedom that the international consensus had, was choosing the units in which we express this universal constant (c).

Re: Time is constant ?

If two observers disagree about the rate of time, they have to disagree on the speed of light.

Ok let's look at the why this is.

Observer 1 rate of time 1.s per 1.s

Observer 2 rate of time 0.9s per 1.s relative to observer 1.

Observer 2 measures the speed of light d/t to be different than observer 1's d/t measurement because of the time difference.

1m/s

1m/0.9s is not equal

You can also doing it by using gravity,

Observer 1 measures a falling objects rate of fall to be a=9.82m/s²

Observer 2 with a slower rate of time measures? a=9.82m/0.9s²

Would we say gravity was not constant?

You wanted an experiment Burt? drop two equal mass objects from an equal height and measure the rate of acceleration with a dilated clock and a ground state clock. G constant remains constant, the timing of the falling masses fall is synchronous.

Example times, not accurate.

This sounds like an evasion but the speed of light is defined as a “relative absolute” and it can not be measured as anything other than 299,792,458 meters per second EXACTLY. That means there are no more decimal points to be added to the value or experimental results to give us a different value for the speed of light in a vacuum. The value of c is a designated absolute by international consensus.

Here is the problem with your example of two experimenters who find different values for the speed of light. They must first determine the distance over which the speed is measured and, if the meter is their choice of units, each experimenter can determine the length of a standard meter in his own laboratory by the use of a timer and a light source. The length of a standard meter is defined by convention as, ‘The length of the path traveled by light during a time interval of 1/ 299,792,458 of a second.’ This means that, if the two observers measure different elapses of time, they will also measure different values for the length of a meter but they should agree on their eventual measurements for the speed of light since that is what they use to determine the length of a meter in the first place.

Consider the dilemma if your two experimenters try to measure the speed of light over the distance of a light year and they find a discrepancy. There is the same difficulty in your experiment with dropping objects in two reference frames with different measurements of time. The measured height will also be different if their elapsed times are different and their gravitational gradients will also be different. The same principles of relativity apply to both frames individually because the changes in time and space remain proportional within all reference frames.

We can easily imagine a world in which gravity, space, time, and their ratio c are all unchangeable absolutes but such a world does not conform to observations which is why we have relativity. We could also have a model of relativity where either space or time is the designated absolute and c is a variable but that would be a more complicated point of view so c is the absolute of choice.

Yes it is an evasion of the question and discussion, repeating present knowledge does not answer my questions. I have no idea why science forums feel it necessarily to post mainstream notions in personal speculation or personal theories sections, basically I interpret this as you don't really allow anybody to have their own ideas because you tell them they are wrong and post a mainstream ''counter'' that does not even answer the opp's question.

Unless my questions are answered I do not ''see'' how any of the related content shows I am incorrect when the answers to my questions shows it is ''you'' and the related reply content that is incorrect.

Moderator Burt thinks I do not understand relativity, I do understand it and would gladly accept it to be true, if my questions were answered and the answers were opposite to my own answers.

However I do not ''see'' how anybody can disagree with axiom notions, I am sure I will be banned before given an answer like every other forum does, knowing the answers show me to be correct.

Things age, time exists, presently we use the rate of :

SI definition of second is "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".[1][4]

Which is much much more slower than the ''speed'' of time. Time elapses at an immediate pace for all observers.

I would like to ''see'' anybody disagree with this , if they can I will accept relativity to be true.

Your immediate future is fractionally 0 time elapsed from your now , and you immediate future becomes your immediate past at fractionally 0 time elapsed.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 20 Apr 2017, 12:20 wrote:I am confused, to me it sounds like you are saying time does not exist. Time is measured by a rate or frequency if you like. So what do you presume we are measuring if not a rate of time?

Time per se is not measurable, we measure time intervals using clocks, i.e. by counting the number of cycles of a known periodic device between two events. And then we measure the rate of change of some or other parameter against such time intervals. Such as speed = (space interval)/(time interval).

We can also measure two time intervals relative to each other, like what you observed as the time interval against what I observed as the time interval between the same two events.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 20 Apr 2017, 12:20 wrote:I am confused, to me it sounds like you are saying time does not exist. Time is measured by a rate or frequency if you like. So what do you presume we are measuring if not a rate of time?

Time per se is not measurable, we measure time intervals using clocks, i.e. by counting the number of cycles of a known periodic device between two events. And then we measure the rate of change of some or other parameter against such time intervals. Such as speed = (space interval)/(time interval).

We can also measure two time intervals relative to each other, like what you observed as the time interval against what I observed as the time interval between the same two events.

Interesting answer, so you must agree that the time we are not measuring that is not measurable, that the comparison number of cycles measures, the clock rate has no affect on the time we are not measuring?

In another words, there is not a real time dilation but only a dilation of the clock rate.

Re: Time is constant ?

There is not (not time dilation) but time dilation is not (not (not a dilation of clock rates)).

More seriously, velocity time dilation is the ratio of the time intervals (delta_TA/delta_TB between two events, as measured by clocks A and B, which are in relative motion. It has nothing to do with clock rates

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » April 20th, 2017, 5:36 am wrote:Yes it is an evasion of the question and discussion, repeating present knowledge does not answer my questions. I have no idea why science forums feel it necessarily to post mainstream notions in personal speculation or personal theories sections, basically I interpret this as you don't really allow anybody to have their own ideas because you tell them they are wrong and post a mainstream ''counter'' that does not even answer the opp's question.

Unless my questions are answered I do not ''see'' how any of the related content shows I am incorrect when the answers to my questions shows it is ''you'' and the related reply content that is incorrect.

I understand your complaint about appeals to authority but, in this case, we are dealing with the philosophical question of how to make sense of a universe in which EVERYTHING is relative and changing and there are no absolutes. This is where we need some authoritative consensus about what one thing we can consider as absolute and say, ‘Relative to this one thing- everything else is changing.’ We need a place to begin even if it is made by consensus.

The value of c is our absolute of choice and it is a good one because change is driven by changes in space and time and c is the ratio of their dimensions and it appears to remain the same as far as we can tell so c works as a designated absolute. This is the sort of authoritative choice we can’t avoid.

Your view of a universe that operates by several stable axioms is simply an appeal to an older mainstream authority where the universe was believed to follow the numerous, unchangeable laws of God that did not allow changes in space or time. This notion has been undone by observations to the contrary and observation is the ultimate decider.

handmade » April 20th, 2017, 5:36 am wrote:Moderator Burt thinks I do not understand relativity, I do understand it and would gladly accept it to be true, if my questions were answered and the answers were opposite to my own answers.

Your questions do not demonstrate an understanding of relativity because you do not appear to understand that, when our measurements of time change, our measurements of length also change. You are using a false understanding of relativity to prove relativity wrong.

Your “axiom notions” are intuitively correct, logical, and supported by nearly all observations of the natural world. Historically, they served us well until the twentieth century when they failed to explain some seemingly trivial items such as the null result of the Michaelson-Motley experiment and a small anomaly in the orbit of the planet Mercury. Relativity was able to explain these two items which led to an enormous number of unanticipated predictions and new ways of understanding that were later confirmed one-by-one after decades of observations.

People disagree with “axiom notions” because they fail so many observational tests that relativity does not plus relativity has strong mathematical support. What more can you ask for?

Re: Time is constant ?

More seriously, velocity time dilation is the ratio of the time intervals (delta_TA/delta_TB between two events, as measured by clocks A and B, which are in relative motion. It has nothing to do with clock rates

So could we reach agreement that it is a timing dilation we observe? as opposed to time.

Re: Time is constant ?

No, I think this will just create confusion, because "timing dilation" is not well defined. Why do you want to redefine a standard term?

The full and proper definition is:

Wiki wrote:In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.

I used the words "time interval", which essentially mean the same thing.

Wiki wrote:In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.

I used the words "time interval", which essentially mean the same thing.

Burt, a simple question, please. In regard to time dilation/time interval and relativity, has this difference been proven in any way other than as a thought problem? Has it been proven with some concrete demonstration that can be seen in action?

What I am saying is we can envision two travelers between very distant worlds and see what is being said but can we see it actually happen with ordinary clocks - some way that we of lesser comprehension can accept as real?

Maybe there is a place to read this and leave this conversation to its higher and more abstract level. I'll be glad to do so. I confess to a lot of trouble with the theory of relativity anyway. So, I don't belong in this ball game.

Wiki wrote:In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.

I used the words "time interval", which essentially mean the same thing.

My reason is because we are using relative timing to measure time. To say there is a time dilation and time slows down is subjective and suggestive of the likes of time travel etc, where a timing dilation explains objectively and precise what we observe in experiment. People get confused because it is called a time dilation which creates subjective notions, when the facts are it is a dilation of relative timing. The synchronous of the Caesium clocks timing being off set by relative motion compared to the ground state constant of 1 second per second = Caesium frequency . The clocks being out of synchronisation having nothing to do with time , but all to do with timing and synchronisation.

Last edited by handmade on April 22nd, 2017, 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wiki wrote:In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.

I used the words "time interval", which essentially mean the same thing.

Burt, a simple question, please. In regard to time dilation/time interval and relativity, has this difference been proven in any way other than as a thought problem? Has it been proven with some concrete demonstration that can be seen in action?

What I am saying is we can envision two travelers between very distant worlds and see what is being said but can we see it actually happen with ordinary clocks - some way that we of lesser comprehension can accept as real?

Maybe there is a place to read this and leave this conversation to its higher and more abstract level. I'll be glad to do so. I confess to a lot of trouble with the theory of relativity anyway. So, I don't belong in this ball game.

Hi Vivian , IF I had the power to change the time dilation definition , I would change it to a timing dilation, would you understand that easier than a time dilation?

You are in motion, I am at rest in an inertia reference frame, you are timing the frequency of the Caesium cycles relative to time, I am timing the frequency of a Caesium atom relative to time, you measure a slower timing rate than I measure.

Your rate is down tempo

My rate is up tempo relatve to your rate

Or simply imagine two equal size cogs rotating, one is slower at rotating than the other, they are not synchronous, the timing is offset.

Added - @Burt

The Caesium cycles in history where measured to equal a second that was based on the Earths rotation, now if you lived on another planet that rotated slower than the Earth, and based the cycles to equal a second on that planet if devised by the rotation of the planet, then you have just changed time by a difference in rotation speed of the planet.

Our present second is equal to approx 1035 mph. People seem to forget how time was devised and do not think about the consequence if the Earth rotated slower for example. Seconds would be much longer and slower than the present Caesium value of 1 second. Our present rate/speed of time is equal to the Earth's rotation speed, we changed from using rotation because we later discovered the Earth's rotation speed was a variant. So think how a variant speed of rotation could affect the measurement of time if using that for you constant.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmaid wrote:My reason is because we are using relative timing to measure time. To say there is a time dilation and time slows down is subjective and suggestive of the likes of time travel etc, where a timing dilation explains objectively and precise what we observe in experiment.People get confused because it is called a time dilation which creates subjective notions, when the facts are it is a dilation of relative timing.

Handmaid, I've not yet read your reply to my question. I wanted to post this first so I can say "Keep going. I have been wanting to hear this for a long time." In a larger context, is relativity really just facts based on their relativity to each other? But, don't worry about that. Just keep going. I like what you are aiming for. If you prove to be wrong, so be it; but you tried. Much better than blind acceptance, in my opinion.

Re: Time is constant ?

HM, remember that any regular periodic event can be a "clock." In doing a Lorentz transformation on the separation of events in another inertial reference frame (that means in simple English, "moving relative to us, and not accelerating"), we can use anything with regular periodicity. The movement of clock hands, the oscillation of caesium atoms, regular flashes of light from a smoke detector on the rocketship, as it passes by us, water drops from a faucet at 1 ml/hour. It doesn't really matter. As a matter of convention, when we see the rocket go past us, we speak of its length contracting in the direction of its motion, and of its onboard time dilating, which means that time appears to us to be going more slowly onboard than it is for us. IOW, the separation between events, be it a clock tick or a caesium oscillation or light flash expands or "dilates." Onboard the rocket, none of this is experienced, and proper time there is at it was. These Lorentzian transformations are a result of our perspective on the events aboard the rocket, a result of a relative velocity between us and the rocket.

I like this website for clear and concise explanations of this kind of physics:

Spend some time there, if you want, and I think your efforts may be rewarded. To get started, stick with inertial reference frames, which is the "special case" of Special Relativity. Later, you can check out what happens with noninertial (plain English: accelerating!) reference frames.

Re: Time is constant ?

Braininvat » April 22nd, 2017, 11:41 am wrote:HM, remember that any regular periodic event can be a "clock." In doing a Lorentz transformation on the separation of events in another inertial reference frame (that means in simple English, "moving relative to us, and not accelerating"), we can use anything with regular periodicity. The movement of clock hands, the oscillation of caesium atoms, regular flashes of light from a smoke detector on the rocketship, as it passes by us, water drops from a faucet at 1 ml/hour. It doesn't really matter. As a matter of convention, when we see the rocket go past us, we speak of its length contracting in the direction of its motion, and of its onboard time dilating, which means that time appears to us to be going more slowly onboard than it is for us. IOW, the separation between events, be it a clock tick or a caesium oscillation or light flash expands or "dilates." Onboard the rocket, none of this is experienced, and proper time there is at it was. These Lorentzian transformations are a result of our perspective on the events aboard the rocket, a result of a relative velocity between us and the rocket.

I like this website for clear and concise explanations of this kind of physics:

Spend some time there, if you want, and I think your efforts may be rewarded. To get started, stick with inertial reference frames, which is the "special case" of Special Relativity. Later, you can check out what happens with noninertial (plain English: accelerating!) reference frames.

I am already quite familiar with Lorentz and length contractions, people misunderstand that also, the object itself doe's not contract in length, it only appears to be contracted visually because of the angles involved of light from object to observer.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 22 Apr 2017, 17:05 wrote:You are in motion, I am at rest in an inertia reference frame, you are timing the frequency of the Caesium cycles relative to time, I am timing the frequency of a Caesium atom relative to time, you measure a slower timing rate than I measure.

Your rate is down tempo

My rate is up tempo relatve to your rate

Or simply imagine two equal size cogs rotating, one is slower at rotating than the other, they are not synchronous, the timing is offset.

@Vivian, please do not take too much notice of his reply above; it is not relativity, but looks like an explanation of the "Handmade Private Theory". The reply is totally off the mark, relativistically speaking.

But let's not discuss relativity here, because this will detract Handmade from making a proper case for his private theory. I will open a thread on the experimental evidence for relativity, as you asked about.

Handmade wrote:Our present second is equal to approx 1035 mph.

Huh?Since the 1990's, a second is a fixed time, independent of Earth's rate of rotation. The SI definition of second is "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".

The rotation rate of Earth is changing yearly (by a tiny, but seemingly unpredictable amount in either direction), but we never adjust the length of a second. Now and then, apart from leap years, we adjust the length of the year by a second (up or down, the so-called "leap seconds") so that the calendar will stay in step with the seasons forever.

Re: Time is constant ?

handmade » 22 Apr 2017, 17:05 wrote:Huh?Since the 1990's, a second is a fixed time, independent of Earth's rate of rotation. The SI definition of second is "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".

The rotation rate of Earth is changing yearly, but we never adjust the length of a second. Now and then, apart from leap years, we adjust the length of the year by a second (up or down, so called "leap seconds") so that the calendar will stays in step with the seasons forever.

The duration of 9 192 631 770 periods = 1 second of a clock, the duration of the Caesium was not just a made up value , it was the equivalence of a clock second. (equivalence principle).

Re: Time is constant ?

BurtJordaan » April 22nd, 2017, 2:28 pm wrote:Again, huh? This is fast becoming a totally non-scientific discussion. It seems that you do not understand the scientific term "equivalence principle". And a time is equal, or equatable to a speed???

Ok,perhaps I should slow down,

24 hrs = 86400 seconds = 1 day

Is that correct?

24 hours = 1 rotation of the earth at the equator? (before the Caesium standard)

24 hrs = the speed of rotation of the Earth?

added - And the rate of time we use is equal, or equatable to a speed.

Re: Time is constant ?

All one can say is that one day is approximately 86400 seconds, because it varies by a number of pico-seconds every day. The reason is a long story, but it has two main causes: the tides and climatic/geological events. Leap seconds are irregularly spaced and unpredictable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second.

BTW, I suggest you concentrate on stating your theory clearly. These discussions, interesting as they may be, are a distraction...